June 7, 2012

"Rejoice, young man, while you are young, and let your heart be glad in the days of your youth. And walk in the ways of your heart and in the sight of your eyes; but know that for all of these things God will bring you to judgment." ~Ecclesiastes 11:9

You wonder why Atheists look bad? This was on the side of a church. Your god is proud of you, I am sure. But you, as leaders, are guiding the youth to their own destruction. Sad

Some may state that I am generalizing and that they would never condone such behavior. But that is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if you
condone or not.

It's like a kid shooting a black kid in a school, only to
find out his Dad is a leader of the KKK. His Dad may claim he doesn't
approve, but the behavior to hate is taught from an early age. You're leading the youth to their own destruction, literally.

Even Matt Dillahunty said recently that he expects Christianity to come to an end shortly. "Not by force, but by reason" but much the same as the dorks that bomb abortion clinics that believe they are doing something good for their god, they're mislead. You have so many militant and angry Atheists, and the ones that lead them, out there spewing a great deal of hatred that may have blow back, like this picture.

220 comments:

So, you are willing to use this event to claim atheism is bad (even though we don't know that the culprits here are actually atheists)?

So..., when someone professing to be Christian commits a bad act, are you as willing to condemn Christianity as well? Or you you hypocritical when it comes to heinous acts committed in the name of *your* belief?

when someone professing to be Christian commits a bad act, are you as willing to condemn Christianity as well? Or you you hypocritical when it comes to heinous acts committed in the name of *your* belief?

Wow, Dan just keeps on scraping the bottom of the barrel. Dan, do you think that this reflects badly upon ALL atheists? The actions of these vandals has nothing whatsoever to do with me, just as I'm sure the acts of Westboro have nothing to do with you.

Well DEA deals with methheads, I deal with Atheists. "Scraping the bottom" comes with the territory. :7)

>> Dan, do you think that this reflects badly upon ALL atheists?

The militant and angry ones leading the fight? Sure. There is a role in it. Again, blow back.

>> The actions of these vandals has nothing whatsoever to do with me

Said the KKK father

>>just as I'm sure the acts of Westboro have nothing to do with you.

What are their motives? Truth is confrontational, sure. Are they trying g to send people to hell,...or warn?

Philippians 1:12-18 For the Lazy: "the others proclaim Christ out of rivalry, not sincerely, seeking to cause me anxiety in my imprisonment. What does it matter? Just that in every way, whether out of false motives or true, Christ is proclaimed. And in this I rejoice. Yes, and I will rejoice"

The ones "equally" encouraging that behavior, sure. If you encourage and teach subjective morality as a part of your worldview, there is going to be blowback. If you teach to hate, there is going to beblowback.

The title of your post presents a lie. The people who did this are not leaders. And whether they are even atheists is in dispute. It wouldn't be the first time a fundamentalist christian has "played atheist" in order to create fuel for the "atheists are evil" line. "The ones 'equally' encouraging that behavior, sure." Then, by the standard that you use to condemn atheists for the actions of some anonymous vandals, that means you. Denying it is like the denial coming from your hypothetical KKK member. Furthermore, you are equally responsible for all of Hitler's attrocities. Hitler was a christian leader. This is as sure as your claim that those vandals were atheist leaders. Even more sure, since Hitler was public and took credit for his actions and he was a known leader, and the vandals acted in secret; we don't even know who they were.

Yes, Hitler is to blame for the men,soldiers, burning the Jews. Valid point, even if it was not your point. He was not a Christian leader, he was a leader though. The whole Aryan race thing originated from an Atheist leader called Darwin.

"That's what leads Hitler to try and breed humans and apes to try to create an oversized warrior or to send expeditions to Tibet to find a pure, Aryan race."

Hitler followed his leader.

The kids that did this were followers, they were trying to please their hyper critical opinionated Atheist leaders. "Look at me, I'm one of you" they could say. They are lost because you guided them into the woods and it got dark, and they lost their way to the path of righteousness. Being held accountable is what being a leader is all about. "It's not my fault" would come from cowards claiming to lead. Quite telling.

I just wanted to jump in here and draw your readers' attention to something that perhaps you yourself are already aware of but have failed to mention for one reason or another. And that is, Martin Luther was -- using your phrase -- a Howard Huge influence on the mindset of the German people, who were heavily Lutheran. He laid much of the pipe that allowed such evil to flow out against the Jewish people.

In case your readers' aren't aware, here is a sampling of just some of what Martin Luther wrote in "On the Jews and Their Lies":

"Accordingly, it must and dare not be considered a trifling matter but a most serious one to seek counsel against this and to save our souls from the Jews, that is, from the devil and from eternal death. My advice, as I said earlier, is:

First, that their synagogues be burned down, and that all who are able toss sulphur and pitch; it would be good if someone could also throw in some hellfire...

Second, that all their books-- their prayer books, their Talmudic writings, also the entire Bible-- be taken from them, not leaving them one leaf, and that these be preserved for those who may be converted...

Third, that they be forbidden on pain of death to praise God, to give thanks, to pray, and to teach publicly among us and in our country...

Fourth, that they be forbidden to utter the name of God within our hearing. For we cannot with a good conscience listen to this or tolerate it...

And he called the Jews, "...a base, whoring people, that is, no people of God, and their boast of lineage, circumcision, and law must be accounted as filth.”

Again, this comes from "On the Jews and Their Lies"; and lets remind everyone that "Germany’s largest and most devout religious group, the Lutherans, counted themselves among Hitler’s staunchest followers. (Leonard Peikoff, The Ominous Parallels, p. 20)

As Dawson Bethrick points out: "If Hitler was not legitimately a Christian, he was doing precisely what presuppositionalists accuse non-Christians of doing, namely borrowing from the Christian worldview."

Just quickly summarizing: In other words, Martin Luther helped prime the German people for a man like Hitler to come along. Hitler took and sustained power, in part, by appealing to the Christian belief of the German people.

Thanks for that but it was Pvblivs who attempted to derail with the Reductio ad Hitlerum, not I. I mearly tried to get the focus back on point. As we all can see, when Hitler is mentioned, Atheists frenzy. BTW, to discount the link from Hitler to Darwin who spoke of eugenics, and could not have concluded the "master race" ape/man without the science introduced by Darwin, is naive to be kind.

But to touch on even your point in respect. If you place your faith in some dude, things go wrong. Even if that dude is Martin Luther, Hitler, Poe Pot, GW Bush, and especially Obama. Your faith is misdirected.

Dan, your ignorance of history is showing again:Yes, Hitler is to blame for the men,soldiers, burning the Jews. Valid point, even if it was not your point. He was not a Christian leader, he was a leader though. The whole Aryan race thing originated from an Atheist leader called Darwin.

One of my posts there has a link to has some info dealing directly with what you just said. It's all interesting but the bolded part deals with what you speciffically said.

Hitler and the Nazi biologists I have considered certainly claimed a hierarchy of races, but that idea far antedated the publication of Darwin’s theory and was hardly unique to it. There is no evidence linking Hitler’s presumption of such a hierarchy and Darwin’s conception. Moreover, Hitler explicitly denied the descent of species, utterly rejecting the idea that Aryan man descended from ape-like predecessors. And most of the Nazi scientists I have cited likewise rejected that aspect of Darwin’s theory. Hitler did speak of the “struggle for existence,” but likely derived that language from his friend and supporter Houston Stewart Chamberlain, an avowed anti-Darwinian. Moreover, by Hitler’s own testimony, his anti-Semitism had political, not scientific or biological roots; there is no evidence that Hitler had any special feeling for these scientific questions.

From the SFN site which I doubt Dan will read, so I'll post some of the relevant stuff here:

After Auschwitz: Religion and the Origins of the Death Camps." Bobbs-Merrill, Indianapolis, Ind., 1966

"Theologian Richard Rubenstein wrote that the Nazis "did not invent a new villain...They took over the 2,000-year-old Christian trdition of the Jew as villain...The roots of the death camps must be sought in the mythic structure of Christianity...Myths concerning the demonological role of the Jews have been operative in Christianity for centuries..."

"Theologian Clark Williamson of Christian Theological Seminary, Indianapolis, said centuries of Christian hostility to Jews "prepared the way for the Holocaust" he said the Nazis "are inconcievable apart from this Christian tradition. Hitler's pogrom, for all its distinctiveness, is the zenith of a long Christian heritage of teaching and practice against Jews".

Fratricide: The Theological Roots of Anti-Semitism

Dagobert Runes' books: "The Jew and the Cross" and "The War Against the Jew" by Philosophical Library, New York.Everything Hitler did to the Jews, all the horrible, unspeakable misdeeds, had already been done to the smitten people before by the Christian churches....The isolation of Jews into ghetto camps, the wearing of the yellow spot, the burning of Jewish books, and finally the burning of the people-Hitler learned it all from the church. However, the church burned Jewish women and children alive, while Hitler granted them a quicker death, choking them first with gas.Forgot which of those two books that's from though...

Dan, you hypocrite....you made the link between Darwin and Hitler, I was setting you straight.

Face it: If you lie about Hitler getting his ideas from Darwin, you will be corrected. In a futile gesture, I will now demand that you show evidence for your claim that The whole Aryan race thing originated from an Atheist leader called Darwin.

Where did Darwin talk about "Aryans" Dan?

Darwin wasn't even setting out to convert people into atheists either. In fact he held off publishing his work because of the religious implications.

As for Reductio ad Hitlerum you brought it up first. With a false accusation, no less. At least the xian tradition of anti-semitism that Hitler used is actually backed up by history unlike your claim.

I knew that you would not bother to read what I had posted, but that's par for the course for you.

I knew some others likely would. They'd find out interesting things like the fact that Hitler banned Darwin's works from germany.

And that Darwin himself came to see that trying to pigeon-hole different races was most likely useless.

I hope you understand that Charles Manson said that same thing about his followers, claiming they were acting on their own. It's weak, its a cop out.

Look at your link as a great example of the hatred towards "many, over the action of a fringe group" It is you who are inciting your hatred. I am trying, if anything, to incite repentance. To the Atheist leader, so the weak will follow.

Dan misses the point as usual...those are in many cases, mainstream members of the various religions acting up and encouraging others to do the same.

Take a real look at those actions, Dan. They are far worse than mere vandalism in many cases.

I am exposing the religious groups in the act of THEM inciting hatred. How is pointing out bigotry and hateful acts itself a hateful act?

Yet when I point out examples of various religious people calling for atheists to be killed (as seen on that link) Dan brushes it off as "inciting hatred" while some bloody spray paint is enough for Dan to slam all atheists?

Would you consider a pastor encouraging his flock to "beat the gay" out of their kids an example of thoughtful christian leadership? And would that pastor be responsible if a member of his flock took his advice?

A reasonable response. But how is this different from what you are accusing atheists of in your post? (Except, of course, we have direct proof of a christian pastor preaching these statements and you are only speculating.)

Rather than blame atheists for something, why not really demonstrate the moral superiority of christianity and put your own house in order?

First you cannot "beat the gay" out of someone, as that is not the purpose of correcting your child. So misguiding right there.

And yes because the flock is following the wrong shepherd. 1 Timothy 2:5-6 makes that clear.How do you know, Dan? That guy is following your own bible, albeit it's from the OT and he's not advocating killing them like the bible says in places like Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13, 1 Samuel 20:31-33, etc.

By the way, how does that verse you quote have any relevance?

While we're at it: How can you tell if the flock is following the "right shepard", Dan? Can you give examples of some "right shepards"?

I saw that. It tells me that they are young kids trying to honor their leaders. We all know you know how to spell it right because we see your notebook and desk filled with all sorts of hearts and stars around the word. :7)

Maybe that is just a US schoolgirl joke that may go over your UK head.

"Thanks for that but it was Pvblivs who attempted to derail with the Reductio ad Hitlerum," Bzzzzt, wrong. Your argument is that some anonymous people "played atheist;" and, while they did so, engaged in acts of vandalism, and that it means all atheists support vandalism whether they deny it or not because the vandals were "atheist leaders." Your claim is absurd. Atheists in general are no more responsible for this act of vandalism than christians in general are responsible for the acts of Hitler. But... you only hear what you want to hear. To be perfectly clear, it is unlikely that any atheist would object to someone posting the same words as found in your picture as a sign on his own house. It is the act of vandalism that is wrong. And you are trying to broadbrush all "atheists" as vandals and comparing those who object to the accusation of supporting vandalism with a KKK member objecting to being associated with the practices the group is known for. Vandalism is not commonly practiced to "advance the cause of atheism." There is no way that this was done to impress atheists. But it might well have been done by christians to make atheists look bad. I am inclined to think that you support such a motive. After all, you did say "You wonder why [a]theists look bad? This was on the side of a church." "I guess, to be proper, I should of backed that up with verses" No, really you shouldn't. Anything you "back up with verses" is a lie. If you wish to convince those who do not subscribe to your book of lies, you would do better to seek actual evidence.

So, Dan, tired of the constant battering he receives when failing to defend the dishonest presuppositional apologetic, instead tries to tar all atheists with the same brush over some petty act of vandalism he can't evne prove was carried out by an atheist.

He compounds this failure with an attempt to conflate atheist leaders with KKK members - disclosing his own bigotry in the process.

He then completes the triumvirate of epic failness with an attempt to lay Hitler's actions at the feet of Darwin when we all know that they are rooted in the Lutheran tradition.

>> Dan would have us believe that such people are “atheist leaders” — hence the title of his post.

Why do you constantly lie? I already stated BEFORE you wrote this post, that the KIDS who spray painted the side of the church was FOLLOWERS. The post is, though, about the leaders that lead the kids to do harmful things, like the Nazi (KKK) Dad who has a KID kill a black person. You’re pathetically lying, but for what purpose?

>> Well, I have seen quite a few very public atheists. Not one of them encourages vandalism in general or vandalism of churches in particular.

What about those Atheists that sued to take that public Mojave Desert cross down and when the Judge ruled it was allowed the cross was, in the act of vandalism, removed.

Dan, what does your wife think about you clearly being addicted to being insulted? Does she think it's healthy that you regularly post pitiful bullshit in what appears to be a desperate bid to drum up a bit of controversy? Does it bother her that you almost without fail post lies to support your position? Does it not concern her in the least that her husband seems to get off on being called names?

Or is this just a reflection of your role in the house hold, that of the submissive party, doing the dusting whilst she earns the money you live off?

Also, why haven't you blogged about your Cult Leader's appearance on Reddit? You know the one, he did an IAmA, got hammered into the ground, then ragedeleted his account! You've not said a peep about this stellar performance! Why is that?

Reynold, I think Dan has confused Social Darwinism with Charles Darwin's scientific explanation of how the process of evolution plus environmental changes caused proto life to develop into the range of species on this planet.

We know that these positions are radically different but Dan does not have the education to be aware of this. He just parrots what he read in some specious Creationist-friendly writing.

If he were not so blindly bigoted he would probably be suspicious of the fact that the leaders of the Creationist movement have been exposed as very deliberate liars, frauds, cheats and criminals.

At least on of them is in jail for fraud. Another has been convicted of perjury and contempt of court for deliberately lying about the origins of Creationist text books distributed to schools. Creationist sites are full of very carefully crafted misquotes from Charles Darwin and from a bunch of famous scientists, many of whom are alive and very indignant about being made to appear to say the opposite of what they are actually saying. Many of these quotes are so mangled (phrases out of order, words deliberately left out, contextual information omitted) that it cannot be feasibly argued that the authors did not know that they were constructing a deliberate fraud.

If you can know the person by the company he keeps then we can assume that Dan is either just as devious and dishonest as these people or else he condones this behavior in the service of supporting his emotionally held set of delusions.

If Dan had more than half of his brain operating he would realize that he can never get through to skeptical atheists when he begins by insisting that they think and behave in ways that they are very sure that they do not.

Let me provide an example. When someone tells you that you are green skinned when it is obvious to you, and anyone who actually looks at you, that you are not, then the accuser will get nowhere by insisting that the you use their talking-snake-oil product to bleach your skin back to whatever color the accuser thinks is "normal" or acceptable. The problem is that the accuser is wearing green tinted glasses that he cannot acknowledge cause his vision to be distorted and that he refuses to take off because he believes that they are essential to his well-being, simply because someone he respects and likes has told him that this is true - and he never checked to see if they knew what they were talking about.

So, Dan, we think you are metaphorically wearing green tinted glasses that heavily distort your vision. We would like you to take them off and see us for what we really are. We know, and there is plenty of evidence to prove, that we are pretty much like everyone else on the planet, except for our learned or natural tendency to be skeptical of beliefs, especially if they have no valid evidence. In fact, several independent studies show that we are actually more moral, socially healthier and better educated than the average god believer. That is the opposite of what you want us to believe about ourselves.

From a psychological perspective, we are aware that you have made such a public stand of your small minded bigotry that you cannot retract any of it and maintain your heady and addictive feeling of superiority. Very sad.

We object to your disgusting allegations of our supposed misconduct, stupidity and immorality on these pages so that others who read these pages will have some idea of reality. Mind you, you are so "over the top" on these pages that even the average Christian is disgusted with your vicious allegations and absurd thinking.

You used to allow horrified Christians to make comments here. Now you delete them. Hiding and censuring evidence that your world view is heavily distorted is a very good indication that it is. It also suggests, that at some barely conscious level, you know that it cannot stand up to scrutiny. So sad.

To Rosemary:You go girl! Well said! DAN somehow decided that I worship the god of the satanists, then that I worship the "god of self". I am quite certain that I don't worship, period. Must be those glasses you mentioned.

You mean the green ones? Actually I think DAN may be colorblind. After all, he did not seem to notice that grass was green. Or perhaps he just does not have the education to know what the green in plants implies. Or perhaps he has a "green out" filter. Or perhaps he thinks that his particular version of "god" created white grass that ate rocks on a rouge planet with no sun attached and no stars in the skies from which planets are usually formed.

Of course, if he could get over his obsessional belief in the inerrancy of the Bible books then he could accept that the two creation stories at the beginning of the book of Genesis came from the mythology of non-Jewish nations in the region. These people believed that the gods (plural) created all that we can see. The El god was the chief sky honcho and the Yahweh god, a rather naughty god, was one of his minion gods.

It makes no difference that you support it with passages from your holy book. All that implies it that the people who wrote these books were fond of using such fallacious reasoning themselves.

Or you could taking the quote out of context. You should read up on some of the similar comments that Paul makes and note that his "atheists" worship idols and other gods. That makes them pantheists, not atheists. Since that is not what you want to believe you gloss over that information, don't you.

Or you might be simply cherry picking and ignoring passages that contradict the ones you choose.

Or your interpretation might be hopelessly flawed in order to support a belief that makes you feel smugly superior. I would bet on this one as the most likely explanation.

Finally, you should note that many other Christians would use exactly the same verses to condemn your particular version of their religion. It cuts both ways.

I don't lie. And I am not an atheist. If we are to accept your current claim, you wrote a post called "Atheist Leaders" that doesn't talk about atheist leaders at all. As I told Whateverman on my own blog, I consider it more likely that you are backpedalling and denying the original intent of your own post -- rather than admit that you made a mistake.

Hi. I'm new here (and, thankfully, I won't be around for very long. I'm pretty sure I know who vandalized your wall, but I'm sorta reluctant to spill the beans. Your blog here, it's quite the work, ain't it? Presuppositionalism is downright risible. You are a good man, but foolish. God does not need to exist for justice to be true. The justice is that we all die. You will find yourself waking up one morning to the cold specter of an unflinching angel. All that you are will wither to wormfood and you shall bear neither burden of hell nor blessing of heaven. Ashes to ashes. You have done wrong in this world, and your soul is imperfect. You will not find the answers you seek, not from me, not about this vandalism.

I'm pretty sure I know who vandalized your wall, but I'm sorta reluctant to spill the beans.If you know who did it shouldn't you tell the cops? I know vandalism is a (relatively) minor crime, but still...

Why is it that EVERY THREAD on this blog follows the same pattern? Dan posts some idiotic bullshit, Dan gets stomped into the ground by the commentators, Dan gets asked a lot of very relevant questions about what he's posted which he is unable to answer, Dan runs away. A week later, Dan posts more idiotic bullshit....and so on it goes.

Keep in mind that Dan can't accept anything which contradicts his world view. This is why he spends so much time insulting or slandering people and then ignoring the responses he gets.

Personally, I think he's afraid. The flaws in that world view are readily apparent, and he doesn't know how to deal with it other than to pretend there's no problem. I only hope he's not teaching his kids to do the same.

>> Keep in mind that Dan can't accept anything which contradicts his world view.

There might be some truth in that. If we're battling for souls here, even yours, I will battle to the death. I think of all of you like rebellious teenagers, and try to have patience with you. Sometimes I fail at even that. It does get frustrating at times.

>> Personally, I think he's afraid.

Indeed I am. For your soul.

>> I only hope he's not teaching his kids to do the same.

Would THAT be wrong to do so? If so, how is anything wrong in an atheistic worldview?

It's kind of interesting that Presuppositionalism and Logical Positivism have so much in common. They both arose around the same time too. Both are fairly coherent once they 'get off the ground', so-to-speak, in that they are insulated from a direct approach. However, when inspecting the foundations both have self refuting presuppositions.

Presuppositionalism - You have to put your foundations on revelation, because you cannot trust your own autonomous reasoning. However, you need to trust your autonomous reasoning in order to determine what is revelation (and what it means).

Granted, just because presuppositionalism is self refuting doesn't mean that Christianity is false. It just means that the entire apologetic of presuppositionalism should be thrown into the trash by all honest interlocutors.

Anyone can be wrong about just about anything, including you. There is a huge difference, however, between something that is extremely probable and something that is possible but extremely improbable.

Your arguments fall in the last mentioned camp. That leaves you with the burden of proof, not the other way around. You have no logical right to ask anyone how they know anything until you justify how you know that your foundational revelation is real and correct.

Over to you, Dan. Answer the question rather than ducking and dodging and pretending that it is not there or you do not need to supply an answer. I expect that you just cannot answer the question in any sensible manner, and you know that which is why you are avoiding answering it. You hope that we won't notice. FAIL. We do.

It is the same one you have been asked by several people here. In my formulation above it was written like a command:

"Justify how you know that your foundational revelation is real and correct. "

but the context made it clear (at least to other readers) that it refers to the earlier questions asking how YOU knew that your revelation was true.

You don't get it, do you? Everyone can be wrong about just about anything. If I have a 20 percent chance of being wrong and you have a 90 percent chance of being wrong then any sane person would put their money on my explanation, not yours.

I order for your views to be taken seriously you have to show that your view if far MORE PROBABLE than anyone else's view. All you seem capable of doing is insisting that it IS (= feels) one hundred per cent right to you because you have this emotionally based idea that a particular version of a particular god has "revealed" it to you.

That's the weakest argument for believing in the existence of a god that I have heard for a long time.

As I said before: Anything is possible. But that does not make it PROBABLE. In this case, it is not even probable.

Your question has a hidden premise: that an omniscient, omnipotent being could exist in the first place. I do not concede this.

A personal being that is both omniscient and omnipotent is logically incoherent. These are the characteristics of "god" that were made up by ancient Christian philosophers. Their reasoning has been debunked by later philosophers. Christian apologist conveniently ignore this.

If such a being were also deemed to be omni-benevolent then it is inconsistent with the presence of gratuitous suffering in the world, including the necessity for animals to live by cruelly killing and torturing creatures that feel pain.

In other words, if such an impossible being is revealing things to you then this being can only be in your religiously primed imagination.

You have trotted out this question to others who comment on these pages and they, too, have also demolished it as a silly question. It is obvious that it is a stock question that is being mindlessly used as a way of avoiding dealing with topics for which you have no valid answer.

If you were honestly seeking truth, instead of deluding yourself into thinking you have already found all of it, then you stop asking this question. Ergo, you are not honestly seeking truth and have your mind slammed shut.

Again by saying you do not believe the God of the Bible exists makes it an implicitly positive claim. The burden of proof is on you. Care to try, or one again is the Atheists position reduced to the absurd?

Nice try. You claim Magic Invisible Bible Man exists, we don't believe you. The burden of proof is on you because we don't claim no god(s), we just don't believe the myriad god(s) claims including yours. There is a Howard Huge difference between claiming something does not exist and not believing it does. Why do you accuse others of fallacious reasoning only to trot out your shift of the burden of proof? It makes you look dishonest or clueless.

So let's get this straight, you use your autonomous reasoning to conclude that all you have is autonomous reasoning? How is that not viciously circular? So you reason that your reasoning is valid. Great. With that line of thought, no one's reasoning could be invalid. A person with invalid reasoning could easily say the exact same thing, but since their reasoning is invalid they would be wrong. Could you be wrong about everything you believe to know? If not, why not?

>>if you doubt autonomous reasoning, then knowledge is not possible

How do you know this? I am sure you would concede that an omniscient, omnipotent being could reveal things to us, such that we can be certain of them. Right?

The only possible way that we can know anything for certain is by Divine revelation from One who knows everything. It is the Christian position that God has revealed some things to us so that we can be certain of them.

"I am sure you would concede that an omniscient, omnipotent being could reveal things to us, such that we can be certain of them. Right?"

No.

The ONLY way you could be certain would be if this being made you omniscient so that you could check the validity of what it had said. And, given that you lot seem to think that the only way to get knowledge is to be given it by another being you are then faced with your god having the same problem that you claim everyone else has - it's turtles all the way down.

So let's get this straight, you use your autonomous reasoning to conclude that all you have is autonomous reasoning? How is that not viciously circular? So you reason that your reasoning is valid. Great. With that line of thought, no one's reasoning could be invalid. A person with invalid reasoning could easily say the exact same thing, but since their reasoning is invalid they would be wrong. Could you be wrong about everything you believe to know? If not, why not?

Circularity is not a problem, remember? What I'm arguing is axiomatic - you cannot deny it without direct contradiction.

Further, your non sequitur (no one's reasoning could be invalid) doesn't following. The person has to start with the fact that they can trust their reasoning, this is not to say that everything they think is true. It is only to say that they have to believe that they can reason to a conclusion.

How do you know this? I am sure you would concede that an omniscient, omnipotent being could reveal things to us, such that we can be certain of them. Right?

Because of the impossibility of the contrary.

As to your 'concession', I have no idea what that means, so I cannot just concede that - it seems that any thing that is revealed must be interpreted by my intellect somehow, so prima facie, it seems false. Please explain what you mean.

The only possible way that we can know anything for certain is by Divine revelation from One who knows everything. It is the Christian position that God has revealed some things to us so that we can be certain of them.

As I've said (and you've repeatedly ignored), this presupposes my worldview; ie, you are presupposing that you can trust your reasoning in order to make sense out of the 'revelation'.

It's funny, when pushed into a corner, you, Hez, and even Sye, simply retreat to the Pee Wee Herman style apologetic - just simply question what pushed you into the corner. You can't evade the problem though, can you DAN? In the past you've been honest enough to admit it.

Perhaps we should call it psycho-apologetics? Since it's similar to the old trope of psychologists, where they simply repeat what you say only in the form of a question.

The revelation itself is the knowledge. Not what we reason as what knowledge is. Otherwise you could not know anything as something 5 minutes from now may contradict your perceived knowledge. It would end in the infinite regress of "and how do you know that?" On what basis do you proceed with the assumption that it will continue to be consistent?

Again, It's through divine revelation which is the only avenue to said knowledge. We know through God who is omniscient why actually knows everything. We can only assume or guess that our autonomous reasoning is valid. We can be wrong.

Again, I am not saying that atheists do not reason, all I am saying is that they have no basis for assuming that their reasoning is valid, yet they make that assumption. Without presupposing God, the position of the atheist is reduced to absurdity.

This is yet another reason why I am not a evidentialist, but let us go through a test:

Which came first, grass or the sun?

Now if you say "sun" you would be wrong.

Your autonomous reasoning cannot come to any other conclusion and you BELIEVE you're right, but you're not. Grass came BEFORE the Sun. THAT is knowledge you can trust.

DanThe revelation itself is the knowledge.Huh? How can you even know that this revelation is real unless you, as Whateverman said: first presuppose the reliability of the senses that you got this so-called "revelation" through?

Can you describe this revelation to us, so that we can tell for ourselves if we've had it?

Because all we've got is you saying that we have. That's it...that's nothing.

By the way, if you go off on how "nature" is even part of this "revelation", guess again. The reason that the creationists (well, Henry Morris then head of the Creation Research Society) installed a statement of faith in the first place is because the people they sent off to colleges, etc to become (their version of) scientists, kept renouncing their young earth beliefs and in some cases, their faith!

They wanted people who valued ideology over facts.

If the world around us truly matched up with the bible and was therefore part of this "revelation", none of that would have been necessary.

Instead, we have bible-believers losing their faith once they got out and looked at the world.

If that is the standard of "knowledge that you can trust" then your reasoning is very far gone. If your god existed, it would be lying to you.

Here's the thing: The green you see in plants is caused by a green pigment called chlorophyll found in the chloroplasts of cells. It converts sunshine into food for the plant. If there were no sun the plant could NOT exist.

Your text book is very, very WRONG. If it is so spectacularly wrong on this easily disproved topic then it cannot be trusted to be right on anything else, can it?

If this is the standard of the "knowledge" you believe you have been given by a supernatural being you believe to be omniscient then the only sane and logical conclusion is that the god is lying to you, it is a bad god (plenty of evidence for that one in the Old and even the New Testament) or it does not exist and you are making up or accepting a nice story that makes you feel warm and fuzzy and smugly superior. You have just proved what an utter idiot you are.

Grow up! Stop believing everything you are told without checking to see if your informer is mistaken. That is how small children think. Teenagers generally grow out of it. Your cognitive childhood seems to have been somewhat prolonged.

That is only your opinion, an opinion for which you have no valid basis.

And it is completely incoherent.

Why would anyone "repent" unless they were already persuaded by their unaided human reason, that there is a god who demands that they do this. That means you have to know and understand the truth before you can know and understand it. Crazy thinking.

There's a whole load of unanswered questions in this, and every other thread on your board. You run away EVERY SINGLE TIME when cornered.

Let me restate some of the questions I've asked you -

"Am I to take it that you SUPPORT Westboro?"

"Dan, are you claiming that your god is the source of morality?

See, it appears to me that, if your god said it was fine to kill children (Ezekiel 9:5-7) then your god's morality is fluid, and changeable - not ultimate at all!"

"Gnardude has a point - which god do you mean, Dan?"

"Dan, why haven't you blogged about $ye's appearance on Reddit? You know, the one where he got destroyed and then deleted his account?"

Dan said: "I already stated BEFORE you wrote this post, that the KIDS who spray painted the side of the church was FOLLOWERS"

I said "Evidence?"

"Dan, what does your wife think about you clearly being addicted to being insulted? Does she think it's healthy that you regularly post pitiful bullshit in what appears to be a desperate bid to drum up a bit of controversy? Does it bother her that you almost without fail post lies to support your position? Does it not concern her in the least that her husband seems to get off on being called names?

Or is this just a reflection of your role in the house hold, that of the submissive party, doing the dusting whilst she earns the money you live off?"

There you go, just a handful of unanswered questions. Going to deal with those Dan?

>>See, it appears to me that, if your god said it was fine to kill children (Ezekiel 9:5-7) then your god's morality is fluid, and changeable - not ultimate at all!"

As you already know, I don't discuss Scripture with those that don't hold it as authoritative. God has a sufficient moral reason for the commands He provides to us. It's either trust you, fallible man, or God, the Infallible Creator. If God were false, you would lose the preconditions for the intelligibility you require to posit your position of morality.

Also, I have already addressed that point. Remember this:

Before we address that you have made some assumptions of your point that you will have to defend before the claim is even valid. Like Razi Zacharias said that I highlight in one of my posts, you have just invoked a moral law, or standard in raising that claim that your worldview cannot account for. That is your presupposition of the claim, is it not? Otherwise, the claim self destructs.

>>"Gnardude has a point - which god do you mean, Dan?"

Don't be difficult. There is only one Creator, the Christian God. That is not the same as your god, the god of "self".

>>"Dan, why haven't you blogged about $ye's appearance on Reddit?

Meh. No reason. He preached the word, good for him.

>>You know, the one where he got destroyed and then deleted his account?"

Hardly. Same old garbage like you do here. You claim Atheists "destroy" our arguments but are completely inconsistent with your own worldview. Sad. Claimed things, asserted things, doth not equate to truth of things. Howard Huge difference. You always seem to bypass that one also. You ACTUALLY believe just because you assert something makes it true? Really? Quite hypocritical of you don't you think?

>>I said "Evidence?"

Evidence of them being followers and weak? Well, look at their fruit. They were young because they cannot even spell things correctly. They are boastful. They are following atheism, as evidenced by their claims.

>>"Dan, what does your wife think about you clearly being addicted to being insulted?

Fallacious arguments. Does not require a response. How does your wife feel about you molesting children?

>>Does she think it's healthy that you regularly post pitiful bullshit in what appears to be a desperate bid to drum up a bit of controversy?

Healthy to obey God's commands? Sure. Healthy to mucking it up all the time with the wickedness of Atheists? not so much.

>>Does it bother her that you almost without fail post lies to support your position?

That is like me asking, How does your wife feel about you molesting children in support of your atheism? You're absurd.

>>Does it not concern her in the least that her husband seems to get off on being called names?

In the field we call this projecting. YOU obviously love to call people names. That doth not equate to the people receiving your insults as liking it. Bullies and rapists may feel that their victims, "like" their treatment, but they are the ones that are deranged. You're acting like a rapist with those statements. Does your wife approve of you raping people?

>>Or is this just a reflection of your role in the house hold, that of the submissive party, doing the dusting whilst she earns the money you live off?"

Again, called projecting. Look it up. I am in touch with my feminine side and I am fully OK with it. You may feel it is above you to provide and clean safe environment for your children but that speaks volumes of your perceived "manhood" Dude, I do windows too. Wait a minute, do you even have children?

I think Dan is proceeding on the belief that attack is the best method of defense. He has no other defense. We have seen this time and time and time again. Most of his "answers" are not answers but questions or accusations.

To give him the benefit of the doubt (he is pretty stupid, after all), he probably thought that he was making a good analogy that would show up your accusations as ridiculous. Of course, it does not do that job, does it? All he has done is libel you in order to avoid answering a question.

To be fair, it was a fairly loaded question. OTOH, he used this technique first and does so all over his site.

"In the field we call this projecting" What "field" and who are "we"? It seems painfully obvious that Dan does not have any nationally recognized qualifications in psycho-analysis or psychological science or psychiatry - or even in sociology (which has no business using psychoanalytic jargon, but it does it anyway.)

As someone who DOES have legitimate qualifications in this area I can confirm that the projection is coming entirely from Dan, not the other way around. The projection of projection is ironic, don't you think?

Knowledge that is filtered through our mines, correct? Hence, it is knowledge that has to be interpreted.

Not what we reason as what knowledge is. Otherwise you could not know anything as something 5 minutes from now may contradict your perceived knowledge. It would end in the infinite regress of "and how do you know that?" On what basis do you proceed with the assumption that it will continue to be consistent?

Again, It's through divine revelation which is the only avenue to said knowledge. We know through God who is omniscient why actually knows everything. We can only assume or guess that our autonomous reasoning is valid. We can be wrong.

This is mistaken, as I've repeatedly shown - in order to understand any such revelation we first have to start with the presupposition that we can trust our ability to reason.

Only then can we come to other conclusions. You keep presupposing my worldview.

Again, I am not saying that atheists do not reason, all I am saying is that they have no basis for assuming that their reasoning is valid, yet they make that assumption. Without presupposing God, the position of the atheist is reduced to absurdity.

Actually what you are saying is self contradicting. You are saying that we shouldn't trust our autonomous reasoning while ALSO saying that we can trust it when it comes to what we have reasoned to be a divine revelation.

In short, you are arguing two contradictory things.

This is yet another reason why I am not a evidentialist, but let us go through a test:

Which came first, grass or the sun?

Now if you say "sun" you would be wrong.

Technically I'd say neither.

Your autonomous reasoning cannot come to any other conclusion and you BELIEVE you're right, but you're not. Grass came BEFORE the Sun. THAT is knowledge you can trust.

OK, now release the teasing atheists on that one. lol

Actually it's obvious that you are struggling with this - hence your stab at humor. As you admitted previously, you had some things to work out with regard to your worldview. It appears you still do.

Right now it stands in it's own self refuting shadow. How do you intend to get out of it?

That is called a Freudian slip because you're discussing autonomous reasoning and you use the term "mines" instead of mind. Quite telling and funny. I will leave that one, as is.

>>Hence, it is knowledge that has to be interpreted.

Are you certain 'that' knowledge "has to be interpreted"? If so, how? Otherwise, taken as a bare assertion.

>This is mistaken, as I've repeatedly shown - in order to understand any such revelation we first have to start with the presupposition that we can trust our ability to reason.

Yes, you barely assert this point exhaustively. And? How do you KNOW your reasoning is valid? Is it assumed? Could you be wrong? If not, why not?

>>Only then can we come to other conclusions. You keep presupposing my worldview.

Did you conclude that I presuppose your worldview? D'oh!

>>You are saying that we shouldn't trust our autonomous reasoning while ALSO saying that we can trust it when it comes to what we have reasoned to be a divine revelation.

YES!!!!! This is not a contradiction though. You assume your autonomous reasoning is valid. All I am asking is, how do you KNOW it is valid?

Also, as explained, it is not trustworthy. Proverbs 3:5-6

Here is another one. Can someone live to be 900 years old. You would cry "no way", right? But Noah did. Grass did come before the Sun, and donkeys do indeed talk. (tinyurl.com/Manintellect) How do you KNOW these things are false? Your reasoning? Bzzzt. Viciously circular get's you nowhere.

>>Actually it's obvious that you are struggling with this

Not in the least. You assume this.

>>hence your stab at humor.

My humor is AT Atheists, not with. I pictured all the Atheists, like they did on my FB group, doing just that. I posed the same question and they all lost their minds, figuratively speaking. It was very funny and entertaining.

>>As you admitted previously, you had some things to work out with regard to your worldview.

Hogwash. If you wish to replace "worldview" with "Bible" then that would make that statement true. Otherwise...

My Christian worldview is on solid foundation, my questions that I have about the Bible, and some of the difficult parts, are waiting on the sidelines to be addressed if God so chooses. That will not affect my trust in Him, or my worldview, though.

>>Right now it stands in it's own self refuting shadow.

Again barely asserted. Keep convincing yourself of things. In the field we call it delusional.

>>How do you intend to get out of it?

Don't feel the need to. I felt the urge to help you clarify your reasoning about things though. Call it charity. (Plus, I am commanded to speak the truth)

That is called a Freudian slip because you're discussing autonomous reasoning and you use the term "mines" instead of mind. Quite telling and funny. I will leave that one, as is.

It's an obvious misspelling DAN.

Are you certain 'that' knowledge "has to be interpreted"? If so, how? Otherwise, taken as a bare assertion.

In the case we are talking about, yes, since it would necessarily be 'revealed' to us. We would have to interpret it in some fashion. I cannot even make any sense out of the alternative - if you think there is one, then by all means, please explain.

Yes, you barely assert this point exhaustively. And? How do you KNOW your reasoning is valid? Is it assumed? Could you be wrong? If not, why not?

I've shown it, actually. You have not rebutted it - all you've done is question it. I'm sorry DAN, but the onus is on you to refute it, not merely stand back and scoff as you are doing.

Did you conclude that I presuppose your worldview? D'oh!

Yes, you borrow from it, obviously.

YES!!!!! This is not a contradiction though. You assume your autonomous reasoning is valid. All I am asking is, how do you KNOW it is valid?

So you admit the contradiction then. What were you saying about Freudian slips, DAN?

Here's what I wrote: You are saying that we shouldn't trust our autonomous reasoning while ALSO saying that we can trust it when it comes to what we have reasoned to be a divine revelation.

Please tell the class, what does 'it' refer to?

Also, as explained, it is not trustworthy. Proverbs 3:5-6

If I cannot trust it, how can I trust my interpretation of Proverbs, DAN? It could actually say the exact opposite (again you are borrowing from my worldview).

Here is another one. Can someone live to be 900 years old. You would cry "no way", right? But Noah did. Grass did come before the Sun, and donkeys do indeed talk. (tinyurl.com/Manintellect) How do you KNOW these things are false? Your reasoning? Bzzzt. Viciously circular get's you nowhere.

Actually I would say that I do not think so because all the evidence points to the contrary - I would not make a statement of certainty with regards to this.

Further, you are mistaking quite a lot with regards to this - you are mistaking the scientific method for certainty - I haven't been talking about the scientific method though, this is simply a red herring (and a ridiculous one at that), but it can get you into significant trouble since it's another aspect that presuppositionalists are not consistent on. We can discuss that later though.

Not in the least. You assume this.

This is true, you could have been blatantly lying to me.

My humor is AT Atheists, not with. I pictured all the Atheists, like they did on my FB group, doing just that. I posed the same question and they all lost their minds, figuratively speaking. It was very funny and entertaining.

It's interesting that you decide to digress about this instead of actually clarifying your worldview.

Hogwash. If you wish to replace "worldview" with "Bible" then that would make that statement true. Otherwise...

My Christian worldview is on solid foundation, my questions that I have about the Bible, and some of the difficult parts, are waiting on the sidelines to be addressed if God so chooses. That will not affect my trust in Him, or my worldview, though.

In context this seems blatantly false, since we were talking about what you presupposed with regard to your worldview. It's interesting that you would say that it's actually the Bible that you had questions with - since such an admission actually cuts to the heart of my point, that it has not been certainly revealed to you.

So what is this certain revelation, DAN?

Again barely asserted. Keep convincing yourself of things. In the field we call it delusional.

Perhaps your inability to see it stems from your self-refuting stance on autonomous reasoning?

Don't feel the need to. I felt the urge to help you clarify your reasoning about things though. Call it charity. (Plus, I am commanded to speak the truth)

It doesn't seem that you are actually clarifying anything. You just seem to be digging yourself deeper.

Dan, please stop using psycho-analytic terms and making psychological diagnoses without legitimate training to do so. In my country of origin, practising psychology or psycho-analysis without a license is a criminal activity.

The revelation is not something you can escape. Even if you deny a special revelation, like the Bible, you are still in the world of natural revelation.

"Man was created as the image of God (Gen. 1:16-27) and thus cannot escape the face of God. There is no environment where man can flee to escape the revelational presence of God (Ps. 139:8). God’s natural revelation goes out to the end of the world (Ps. 19:1-4) and all people see His glory (Ps. 97:6). Therefore, even when living in open (idolatrous) rebellion, men are in the condition of “knowing God” (Rom. 1:21)—the living and true God, not merely “a god.” Christ enlightens every man (John 1:9), and so Calvin declares: For we know that men have this unique quality above the other animals, that they are endowed with reason and intelligence and that they bear the distinction between right and wrong engraved in their conscience. Thus there is no man to whom some awareness of the eternal light does not penetrate...the common light of nature, a far lowlier thing than faith (Calvin’s Commentaries, tr. T.H.L. Parker; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1959)." ~Bahnsen, Greg; Booth, Robert (2011-03-03). Always Ready: Directions for Defending the Faith

You don't have to. How do you determine what is intuit, or what is actually your conscience? Nothing to work out. It is there. Those who deny a "conscience" speaks volumes of their worldview.

Okay, then what is a 'revelation'?

As to the rest, you actually have to think about those things. Your brain filters then in terms of english or pictures. I'm not sure what sense it makes to appeal to intuition since intuition is, basically, a 'gut feeling' (which is generally predicated on prior experiential data) about something which you then have to decide whether or not is true or false. If you cannot trust your own reasoning, then any such intuitions could not be trusted either.

God revealed to all mankind Him. I will repeat:

The revelation is not something you can escape. Even if you deny a special revelation, like the Bible, you are still in the world of natural revelation.

Hold up there, in a prior post you said that you still had questions about the Bible, so you can't now appeal to it as something that we can't escape from. If this were a medium from God, which you've previously said that God has made you certain of, then how on earth could you have questions about it?

Further 'natural revelation' requires us to first trust our sensory perception and our ability to reason about any such data input. These are off limits to you (which consequently destroys your appeal to the Bible, but you already rejected that).

Calvin's writings and opinions are equivalent to the writings and opinions expressed in the Bible?

Might I remind you, Dan, that something is not true just because it is printed in a book somewhere. The opinions and assertions expressed by the authors of the Christian Bible and by Calvin and every other person you believe to be "inspired" are open to criticism and debunking by ordinary common or garden variety empirical observation.

Of course, your vision is so distorted that even seeing things out your window as they really are is a problem for you. Apparently, you cannot even see that the grass is green and acknowledge that it therefore cannot exist without the sun. How pitifully sad.

Better what? Convincing? As you know my argument is not intended to be convincing, I am merely commanded to speak the truth, 'convincing' is out of my hands. Hez did just fine speaking the truth. He is a great deal more patient then I also. He is your best friend and you treat him with such disrespect. At least Alex does, but that is his M.O. after all.

Dan your argument is not convincing and hardly likely to be the "truth". If it were, then every devout seeker of the supernatural would have the same things revealed to them.

The fact is that all sincere seekers of the supernatural have different and often mutually exclusive "revelations". On the basis of "autonomous reasoning" it is impossible to decide which, if any, of these revelations is true. Bayes Theorem leads to the conclusion that none of them are true.

As has been pointed out many, many times on this blog of yours, you also have no way of determining whether your "revelation" or your interpretation of it are true. In your worldview, pinched from Calvin, you must begin with no revelation and no basis for correct reasoning. If you then receive a revelation you therefore have no reliable tools for determining whether you are being contacted by a god with all the characteristics you assert or being persuaded by an evil or lying god, or just being conned by your own imperfect brain. You always avoid explaining how you can possibly KNOW that your faulty brain made the right decision at this point when millions of equally fanatical religious people disagree with your conclusions.

"It would end in the infinite regress of "and how do you know that?" On what basis do you proceed with the assumption that it will continue to be consistent?"

But we've told you time and time again we don't have an infinite regress! At the base of our knowledge is the self evident axiom of the Primacy of Existence, it's a solid undeniable foundation upon which all other knowledge is built.

You, on the other hand, have a MAJOR problem with infinite regress if you claim that something as complex as a Universe needs a creator but that the even more complex 'creator' can exist without an even more complex uber-creator.....

>>At the base of our knowledge is the self evident axiom of the Primacy of Existence

Cop out, and you know it. Are their invalid axioms? If so, you're still clueless. If not, then God being necessary for logic is my axiom. "it's a solid undeniable foundation upon which all other knowledge is built."

>>You, on the other hand, have a MAJOR problem with infinite regress if you claim that something as complex as a Universe needs a creator but that the even more complex 'creator' can exist without an even more complex uber-creator.....

Complex? That is your injection. It is NOT complex at all. The universe fits is the span of His hand. No, It was a tell for you to call this universe "complex" and the reason why you should respect the God who Created it.

Part of the meaning of being axiomatic is that if you deny the axiom it leads to contradiction.

So, for instance, in order to deny the primacy of existence I have to exist in order to do it.

God exists is not similarly axiomatic. I can deny God exists and it does not lead to contradiction. You say that God is necessary for logic, however this shows that you think that logic is contingent and not necessary, which short-cuts your own argument.

>>So, for instance, in order to deny the primacy of existence I have to exist in order to do it.

This is rich coming from a group that denies the authority of Scripture.

"If Scripture is the final authority, and if one proves the authority of Scripture on the basis of something else other than Scripture, then one proves that Scripture is not the final authority. In other words, to prove the authority of Scripture on something other than Scripture is to disprove Scripture" (Michael Butler, "A truly Reformed epistemology," in Penpoint Newsletter, Vol. 8, No. 5 [Southern California Center for Christian Studies, May 1997], p. 3).

>>I can deny God exists and it does not lead to contradiction.

Does not lead to contradictions? Hardly. The claim is that God has revealed Himself to EVERYONE, and that this is exposed with every truth claim, every knowledge claim, and even every rational thought you have.

In other words, you know He exists and by crying "where is the evidence" is denying your own existence. Its absurd to reason with someone that is actually denying their own existence, all the while, demanding evidence for God.

I am aghast that you actually believe that the Michael Butler quote makes sense. It is completely and blatantly circular. You must use the Bible to prove that the Bible is true. The Bible is true because it says it is true which proves that the Bible is true because it says it is true .... Repeat ad nauseum until it becomes ingrained in your thinking and impossible to eradicate.

If you don't want to discuss it then stop quoting it. We have no reason whatever to believe that either the Bible is infallible or your reasoning about it is infallible. We have read the thing as we have come to very different conclusions about its validity than you have. We don't cherry pick only the bits that support our viewpoint, but you constantly do this.

"Does not require a response. How does your wife feel about you molesting children?"

Dan, there's something you don't realise here - we have ample evidence that you seem to enjoy being insulted, your blog and the nonsense you deliberately post on it is designed purely to attract abuse from people who (rightly) think you're a moron. On the other hand, there is ZERO evidence that I'm a child molester, due to the fact that I have never molested a child.

So to ask how my wife feels about it is nonsensical....also you should probably look into libel again, as you appear to have just baselessly accused me of committing a crime.

>>we have ample evidence that you seem to enjoy being insulted, your blog and the nonsense you deliberately post on it is designed purely to attract abuse from people who (rightly) think you're a moron.

Ample evidence barely asserted and not presented. Got it. Where is this evidence, dork? Was it the quotes?

"If sinners be damned, at least let them leap to Hell over our bodies. If they will perish, let them perish with our arms about their knees. Let no one go there unwarned and unprayed for." ~C.H. Spurgeon

I have also seen lots of evidence that you enjoy being insulted but I have ZERO evidence that Alex is a child molester. Your perception is clearly distorted. That is not a good advertisement for your assertion that your logic is superior to ours because yours is based on the knowledge from an omniscient god. It is rather clear, that were your god to actually exist, it is a very poor educator. Your logic is constantly shot down as idiotic. That does not say much for the logic that your god uses, does it?

DanBecause you BELIEVE this? You regularly post things that are demonstrably untrue too. Now what?Speaking of posting things that are untrue, you posted:The whole Aryan race thing originated from an Atheist leader called Darwin.

Are you going to back that statement up, or are you going to apologize and retract it?

Dan, I have to ask - is the 'accuse your adversary of child molestation' a move that the Bible recommends? It's just that I've seen several of your crowd use that kind of language recently, including $ye accusing a *fellow believer* who had the gall to question the official $ye version of certain events.

I'd suggest that any group that falls into that kind of behaviour is becoming dangerously like a Cult, after all the Scientologists used to really like baseless accusations....

DAN believes that he can ground his ability to know anything at all in the certainty of an omniscient being.

How does he know this? It's unclear, but it has to do with the idea that an omnimax being has revealed something to him in such a way that he can be certain.

Do you think the italicized is a fair representation of what you believe, DAN?

Presuming that you do, this brings up the following questions:1. What are these revelations?2. Assuming that God has given you such revelations, how exactly has he made you epistemically certain of them?

Regarding 1:In the past DAN has claimed two things:A. The Bible is a revelation of God.B. God has revealed himself in nature.

With regard to both of these things we have to first assume that we can trust our sense data and our interpretations of these data. With regard to A in particular, DAN has said at June 13, 2012 1:17 PM My Christian worldview is on solid foundation, my questions that I have about the Bible, and some of the difficult parts, are waiting on the sidelines to be addressed if God so chooses. That will not affect my trust in Him, or my worldview, though.

From this we can infer that the Bible is not entirely clear. It is not self authenticating. In other words, in order to come to conclusions derived from the Bible, DAN has to be able to trust his ability to autonomously reason about it. What it means, what it says, etc. It seems that even though God has given him this 'certainty' he cannot use it with respect to deciphering the Bible. The conclusion is clear - A is out.

So what about B? Well, DAN has not been entirely clear by what he means by a natural revelation. One could assume that he means that through trusting our senses about what nature is showing us, we can know God exists. Notice that first we have to trust our ability to reason, we have to know what are senses are telling us. Since I confess that I do not find it entirely clear what DAN is referring to here, I will leave it open for him to fill in the gaps. He will have to explain what it is about nature that has provided him this epistemic certainty.

Regarding 2 (from above Assuming that God has given you such revelations, how exactly has he made you epistemically certain of them?)

DAN nor Sye has ever clarified this. They have simply asserted it without explaining what they mean nor how it's possible. Since the onus is on them to provide such answers and they have failed to answer them, it's safe to take their silence as an admission that they cannot answer them.

>>Presuming that you do, this brings up the following questions:1. What are these revelations?

Once again Natural and Special revelations. Natural (nature, math, space, planets, stars, galaxies, etc.) and Special revelations (Jesus, His resurrection, Scriptures, miracles, etc.)

>>2. Assuming that God has given you such revelations, how exactly has he made you epistemically certain of them?

It would take intellectual dishonesty to claim that God could not reveal some things to us such that we could know them for certain. The claim is that God has revealed Himself to EVERYONE, and that this is exposed with every truth claim, every knowledge claim, and even every rational thought you have. You would have to deny yourself, to deny God. Its absurd to reason with someone that is actually denying their own existence, all the while, demanding evidence for God.

>>With regard to both of these things we have to first assume that we can trust our sense data and our interpretations of these data.

False. I justify my senses and reasoning by the truth of God and His word. The use of one's senses and reasoning is categorically distinct from justifying their use. But you know this and deny it. At least you're consistent.

>>From this we can infer that the Bible is not entirely clear.

Hardly. I have questions but they are not deal breakers. I am not sure what exactly I was thinking about when I wrote that but the Bible is difficult to relate to, that is all. I have trouble relating to Abraham and Lot, and their choices, for example.

>>It is not self authenticating.

Sure it is. You AGAIN deny this. I don't

>>In other words, in order to come to conclusions derived from the Bible, DAN has to be able to trust his ability to autonomously reason about it.

Wrong again. I am seeing a pattern here. My autonomous reason is the problem and getting in the way. In using that autonomous reason, I cannot see how Lot gave his daughters up to the strangers, as a Dad of a daughter myself. But I still trust God, and His plan. I am getting in the way, that is all.

>>It seems that even though God has given him this 'certainty' he cannot use it with respect to deciphering the Bible.

I am absolutely certain that God exists. I am certain that Lot did that. I cannot relate to it, but I trust it.

>>The conclusion is clear - A is out.

Projecting again?

>>DAN nor Sye has ever clarified this.

You're asking the HOW God does things? Really? Some things I don't know. I don't know how He created the Universe, but the universe was Created by God.

What is glaring here is you deny, with certainty, the possibility of God being able to do such a thing, reveal Himself through Natural and Special revelations. If you don't deny this point, then you already answered your question. If possible, then attainable.

Once again Natural and Special revelations. Natural (nature, math, space, planets, stars, galaxies, etc.) and Special revelations (Jesus, His resurrection, Scriptures, miracles, etc.)

Okay, so no 'divine sense' or personal revelation - which Sye appeals to - for you. You appeal to things that have to first go through your cognitive facilities and be interpreted by your brain.

It would take intellectual dishonesty to claim that God could not reveal some things to us such that we could know them for certain. The claim is that God has revealed Himself to EVERYONE, and that this is exposed with every truth claim, every knowledge claim, and even every rational thought you have. You would have to deny yourself, to deny God. Its absurd to reason with someone that is actually denying their own existence, all the while, demanding evidence for God.

Assuming that God has given you such revelations, how exactly has he made you epistemically certain of them?

Second, what is intellectually dishonest about being agnostic about the position? I'm not convinced that an omnimax entity is a coherent concept - and if it's not then obviously such an entity couldn't do anything.

Third, what is this 'revelation' that God gave to everyone? is this nature or scripture - both of which require autonomous reasoning (which you regard as faulty)? Further, both of these do not 'certainly' demonstrate God's existence. So please, explain what you mean, how do either one of these lead to epistemic certainty?

False. I justify my senses and reasoning by the truth of God and His word. The use of one's senses and reasoning is categorically distinct from justifying their use. But you know this and deny it. At least you're consistent.

You apparently don't understand your own presuppositions. You presuppose that we cannot reason autonomously - our reasoning is corrupted by sin. To know anything you have to appeal to God's word, which gives you a foundation on which to rely - it gives you grounding to 'know anything at all'. The problem is, to get to God's word, you have to first trust your ability to reason, otherwise you cannot trust what you perceive God's word as being!

I feel like I have to explain Bahnsen to a Bahnsen supporter... Have you read any of his books?

Hardly. I have questions but they are not deal breakers. I am not sure what exactly I was thinking about when I wrote that but the Bible is difficult to relate to, that is all. I have trouble relating to Abraham and Lot, and their choices, for example.

They are not deal breakers to you because you fail to realize how devastating to your 'certainty' this is - they show that one cannot simply trust scripture (didn't you just say ""I justify my senses and reasoning by the truth of God and His word". How do you know that those are the only problems? What guides you to the correct interpretation? A "divine sense" (which you previously have ignored)? If that is the case, then why is there any question at all? If it's not the case, then you certainly cannot appeal to scripture for certainty. You are simply being a cafeteria Christian with your epistemology.

Wrong again. I am seeing a pattern here. My autonomous reason is the problem and getting in the way. In using that autonomous reason, I cannot see how Lot gave his daughters up to the strangers, as a Dad of a daughter myself. But I still trust God, and His plan. I am getting in the way, that is all

How do you know God or his plan if you cannot trust your ability to reason?

Is autonomous human reasoning a bad thing? If it's a bad thing, it is all the worse for us, because it is all we have. Although people often oppose revelation to reason and suggest that revelation is superior, there can be, in the end, no real opposition. Here is the problem; Each person must decide (tacitly or explicitly) that a purported revelation is revelation. Each person must decide that what is being said in some particular holy writ is the voice of God. Each person must decide what is being said and then what it means. And each person must decide what it means today that God said something a long time ago. At every level, human reason is operative.

I am absolutely certain that God exists. I am certain that Lot did that. I cannot relate to it, but I trust it.

No, you are emotionally certain that God exists - you 'feel it in your gut'. If you were epistemically certain you would be able to answer the following question without ducking it

Assuming that God has given you such revelations, how exactly has he made you epistemically certain of them?

In short, you say God could do this, but how do you know he's done it in your case? If you believe he has, then what is it that has made you epistemically certain (not emotionally certain)?

My guess is you will retreat to the 'god can do this' Sye excuse and fail to address the actual question. Your silence on this is very telling.

You're asking the HOW God does things? Really? Some things I don't know. I don't know how He created the Universe, but the universe was Created by God.

No, I'm not asking with respect to God - I'm asking with respect to you and you are ducking the question. How are you epistemically certain? How do you know God has done this in your case? How do you know you are not being fooled by false revelations?

You don't and hence your worldview fails.

Simply saying you are or that god could do it both show that you 'feel' you are certain, but they do not demonstrate this epistemic certainty that you pretend to have.

What is glaring here is you deny, with certainty, the possibility of God being able to do such a thing, reveal Himself through Natural and Special revelations. If you don't deny this point, then you already answered your question. If possible, then attainable.

This is called 'shifting the burden of proof' - it's a logical fallacy. You should look it up. I'm agnostic to what God 'could' or 'could not' do - since I'm not convinced that an omnimax entity is logically possible.

Dan, you entirely missed the main point of the argument against your current theological position. That is: You need to use your FAULTY UNAIDED REASON in order TO GET INTO a state where you can rely on your version of a particular god to help you reason.

It is also blatantly obvious that your purportedly god-aided reason is of very poor quality. You make all kinds of really bad errors. Either you are just poorly educated or your god is not very good at logic himself. Which is it?

Dan wrote: "....my questions that I have about the Bible, and some of the difficult parts, are waiting on the sidelines to be addressed if God so chooses. That will not affect my trust in Him, or my worldview, though."

If there was this level of doubt about a scientific theory scientists would not be passively waiting for the anomalies to be revealed to them. Nor would they hang on to their trust about the correctness of their theory. They would be out there vigorously testing their old theory to see where it has gone wrong so that they can fix it. They do NOT hide or try to suppress the evidence that the original theory is suspect or incomplete or does not apply in certain circumstances. They write about, talk about, organize conferences about and get their colleagues and students to go out and see what is wrong and why it is wrong and how it can be modified or even if it can be saved at all.

That is a description of honesty and integrity in relation to knowledge.

Your blog provides plenty of examples and evidence that your preferred mode of functioning is to do just the opposite of this laudable behavior: you hold onto your original theory in the face of dis-confirming evidence; you try to hide the evidence, you do not talk about this contrary evidence unless pushed by others, you censor information that does not fit your original theory and, if all else fails, you simply block everything out, shut down your blog and build a firmer and impregnable wall around your belief set so that the rational part of the brain (I think is in there somewhere) cannot analyze and process the dis-confirmation.

You do not go where the evidence leads, get an impartial opinion from someone else or work to find a better theory. You retain the old theory and try to make the dis-confirming facts go away, contort them to fit or use words and verbal constructs in strange and very unusual ways in an effort to make it appear to support, rather than dis-confirm, your original hypothesis.

We in the REAL field call that an "encapsulated delusion". You are a pretty good example of this pathology.

>> you try to hide the evidence, you do not talk about this contrary evidence unless pushed by others, you censor information that does not fit your original theory and, if all else fails, you simply block everything out, shut down your blog and build a firmer and impregnable wall around your belief set so that the rational part of the brain

Are you still talking about me? Or are you doing what we call in the field as 'projecting'? :7)

Is that a kind way of inquiring something or addressing someone? Bully.

>>I'll ask again - where in the Bible is the 'accuse others of paedophilia' verse?

"Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes." ~Proverbs 26:5

I answered you in a "like as" counter. "When you ask that way, that is like asking this way" But you know this and are difficult. Bully.

>>And, again, do you feel godly baselessly accusing someone of a vile sexual crime against children?

Baselessly? Really? You're going to have to flesh that one out more for me to be able to address. You're going to have to define that term for us to move on. I think you do not understand that word because of the structure that you used it. You're in denial or mistaken. Giving your bully tactics and track record of being foul to others, I think we all understand which one. It is hilarious (read very sad) that you're acting as a martyr here though.

When you're done with that, then you will have to define "vile" then. In your worldview is that a subjective term? What is right or wrong according to your worldview? By using that term in the context of "Morally bad; wicked" then, once again, you have just invoked a moral law, or standard in raising that claim that your worldview cannot account for. That is your presupposition of the claim, is it not? Otherwise, the claim self destructs.

"Baselessly? Really? You're going to have to flesh that one out more for me to be able to address. You're going to have to define that term for us to move on. I think you do not understand that word because of the structure that you used it. You're in denial or mistaken. Giving your bully tactics and track record of being foul to others, I think we all understand which one. It is hilarious (read very sad) that you're acting as a martyr here though. "

Dan, do you claim to have evidence that I am a sexual predator? If so I'm sure we'd all be REALLY interested to see it.

As for 'bullying', don't make me fucking laugh, I'm just responding to people like you and $ye in kind.

I SAID: That is like me asking, How does your wife feel about you molesting children? In support of your atheism. You're absurd. (grammar corrected)

I originally said: Fallacious arguments does not require a response. Like asking, How does your wife feel about you molesting children? (corrected)

I admit when you FIRST brought my wife into the scenario, asking foul things, I got protective and angry that you were doing that. I didn't like that.

HERE IS WHAT YOU SAID::

"Does it not concern her in the least that her husband seems to get off on being called names?

Or is this just a reflection of your role in the house hold, that of the submissive party, doing the dusting whilst she earns the money you live off?"

You're being a jerk. An Atheist started making foul comments about my child too, and he is no longer invited into my FB Group. The same reason YOU, yourself, got KICKED off that group also. You're being a jerk. I get it. Stop it.

I should give you as you give others. If you're going to be a jerk, I will delete your comments. That is YOUR rule on YOUR blog. So why do you feel it necessary to be a jerk to me? That is only being fair to you, since that is how you treat others. Alex you're the ONLY one here trying to get me angry with your foul mouth and bringing my family into this discussion. You already got KICKED from my FB Group. Please do not force my hand to do the same here. Now, stop.

"I SAID: That is like me asking, How does your wife feel about you molesting children? In support of your atheism. You're absurd. (grammar corrected)"

And?

"I originally said: Fallacious arguments does not require a response. Like asking, How does your wife feel about you molesting children? (corrected)"

Yeah, you accused me more than once, everyone understands

"I admit when you FIRST brought my wife into the scenario, asking foul things, I got protective and angry that you were doing that. I didn't like that."

I didn't say anything foul

"HERE IS WHAT YOU SAID::

"Does it not concern her in the least that her husband seems to get off on being called names?

Or is this just a reflection of your role in the house hold, that of the submissive party, doing the dusting whilst she earns the money you live off?""

Well, doesn't it? I'm sure she can't be desperately happy that you behave in such a manner.

"You're being a jerk. An Atheist started making foul comments about my child too, and he is no longer invited into my FB Group. The same reason YOU, yourself, got KICKED off that group also. You're being a jerk. I get it. Stop it."

Er, so you're now saying that I made 'foul' comments about your child?? WTF Dan?? Are you fucking INSANE?? You blocked me from your Facebook group because I kept asking you questions you refused to answer.

"I should give you as you give others. If you're going to be a jerk, I will delete your comments. That is YOUR rule on YOUR blog. So why do you feel it necessary to be a jerk to me? That is only being fair to you, since that is how you treat others. Alex you're the ONLY one here trying to get me angry with your foul mouth and bringing my family into this discussion. You already got KICKED from my FB Group. Please do not force my hand to do the same here. Now, stop."

Dan, you seem to be trying to turn this around and spin yourself into the victim role. You're being a prick, and everyone can see it.

How about you try to regain a shred of dignity by deleting your disgusting allegations?

"You will probably ignore that also. Prove me wrong."

Stop playing the victim Dan, you've fucked up, and now you're too proud to admit it and correct your error. Typical of you.

Dan, you cannot use the "you are being a jerk" card when you started this whole name calling and vile assertions approach. Remember the title you gave your blog last year? Now THAT was being a real jerk.

If you behave badly then you should expect people to retaliate in kind. That is how the psychology works and why wars start. You deliberately and viciously provoked people that you did not like because they were a threat to your world view. Therefore you have no moral right to accuse others of being a jerk when they simply mirror your own disgraceful behavior.

Try to remember that the first few comments you got on your original blog were from Christians who disowned you and distanced themselves from you. They considered that you were not a Real Christian. If you are following $ye's example then you will insult and alienate all mainstream and quite a few conservative Christians. You will insist that they are the ones who are not Real Christians. Religious wars started from such beginnings.

If you are being guided by a god then it is incompetent or socially irresponsible or both. You are a very good example of why your religious world view is ridiculous.

Is that a kind way of inquiring something or addressing someone? Bully.

WOW!

Alex says "Ah, you've crawled back out from under your rock I see, Dan"

And you call him a bully.

You imply he's a pedophile.

What does that make you?

Baselessly? Really? You're going to have to flesh that one out more for me to be able to address. You're going to have to define that term for us to move on. I think you do not understand that word because of the structure that you used it. You're in denial or mistaken. Giving your bully tactics and track record of being foul to others, I think we all understand which one. It is hilarious (read very sad) that you're acting as a martyr here though.

WTF DAN? Do you have any evidence or reason to suppose that Alex is a pedophile? Because otherwise it was a baseless accusation!

That is not true at all. Please stop. We have a long history together, he knows what he is doing, and I have the records to show it. He is escalating things to get me angry. You chiming in will not help things.

That is not true at all. Please stop. We have a long history together, he knows what he is doing, and I have the records to show it. He is escalating things to get me angry. You chiming in will not help things.

I don't care how long a history you have with him - Alex was asking you to take back the accusation of pedophilia, saying that you had no grounds (his text is bolded, your response is italicized):

>>And, again, do you feel godly baselessly accusing someone of a vile sexual crime against children?

Baselessly? Really? You're going to have to flesh that one out more for me to be able to address. You're going to have to define that term for us to move on. I think you do not understand that word because of the structure that you used it. You're in denial or mistaken. Giving your bully tactics and track record of being foul to others, I think we all understand which one. It is hilarious (read very sad) that you're acting as a martyr here though.

Regardless of how you intended the comment to be made, when you say the above the clear implication is that the accusation of a "vile sexual crime against children" is not baseless, which means you have some reason/evidence/etc for that accusation.

If you are aware that this is all escalation, rhetoric, or whatever, then why on earth would you crank it up by substantiating the accusation?

>>I don't care how long a history you have with him - Alex was asking you to take back the accusation of pedophilia

IF I did, I would. I didn't.

>>Regardless of how you intended the comment to be made, when you say the above the clear implication is that the accusation of a "vile sexual crime against children" is not baseless, which means you have some reason/evidence/etc for that accusation.

The "vile sexual crime against children" is not what was baseless. My point is that there was a BASE to use that example as he asked if my wife likes it if I like being called names. IF anything I was using that example against myself to make that point. IT was you two who got all butt hurt in complete protest.

Now if I did actually accuse him of that and you want evidence for my accusation? "He doth protest too much" would be that evidence.

>>If you are aware that this is all escalation, rhetoric, or whatever, then why on earth would you crank it up by substantiating the accusation?

I don't think you realize that you've given up the only error-checking mechanism you have DAN. You have no means of discerning between Bible verses, scriptures, or holy texts. Why accept gMark instead of gthomas? for instance? you have no guide. Further, which scriptures do you pick to believe? Do you flip a coin and if it lands on heads you go with Mark with the longer ending? If it lands on tails, then that means the longer ending is an interpolation?

It seems to be rubbing off in your attitudes here. You feel that your word is gold, that you can call people pedophiles and because you say it, it must be true.

>>I don't think you realize that you've given up the only error-checking mechanism you have DAN.

How do you know your reasoning about this, or anything, is valid?

>>You have no means of discerning between Bible verses, scriptures, or holy texts.

How do you know your reasoning about this, or anything, is valid?

>>Why accept gMark instead of gthomas? for instance? you have no guide.

Now you're asking what I am asking!: How do you know your reasoning about this, or anything, is valid?

>>Further, which scriptures do you pick to believe?

False dilemma fallacy? What do you mean by "which scriptures" Scripture is scripture.

>>Do you flip a coin and if it lands on heads you go with Mark with the longer ending? If it lands on tails, then that means the longer ending is an interpolation?

Can I play this nonsensical game too?

>>It seems to be rubbing off in your attitudes here.

No, that is entirely Alex trying to anger me and me digging in my heals to get ready to execute a move, that I wish not to make. It is frustration that you see.

>>You feel that your word is gold,...

Hardly! Examples:

"I am an UNschooling Dad of many seeking to decrease while Christ increases, and ultimately show people that I have nothing more to say in the realm of spiritual things other than what Jesus has already provided."

Because to do presuppose that it cannot be valid about anything is to lead to a direct contradiction.

Now you're asking what I am asking!: How do you know your reasoning about this, or anything, is valid?

This does not answer my questions, I will repeat:

Why accept gMark instead of gthomas?

False dilemma fallacy? What do you mean by "which scriptures" Scripture is scripture.

Are you making up fallacies now? Scripture means a writing that someone considers Holy. In the early centuries of Christianity there were many scriptures that were considered Holy by Christians. Now there are significantly less. So I will repeat my question:

Further, which scriptures do you pick to believe?

Can I play this nonsensical game too?

I notice you, again, didn't answer my question. I will restate: How do you know which is correct, gmark with the ending or without.

No, that is entirely Alex trying to anger me and me digging in my heals to get ready to execute a move, that I wish not to make. It is frustration that you see.

It seems to have worked since you have no implied that you have grounds for the accusation that Alex has committed a 'vile sexual crime against children'.

That is NOT what is going on here, and you know this. You deny that too. Understandable considering your atheistic worldview. Denial is your M.O.

Then what is going on? Did you mistype that bit about 'baseless'? What on earth did you mean if you didn't mean that you had a reason for believing that Alex committed 'vile sexual crime against children'?

"WTF DAN? Do you have any evidence or reason to suppose that Alex is a pedophile? Because otherwise it was a baseless accusation!"

We all know Dan doesn't 'do' evidence, preferring the baseless accusation followed up by the mock-bewildered hurt feelings. The man's mechanism has totally gone.

I hope any silent visitors stumbling across this blog and reading Dan's 'throughts' will see what harm fundamentalist religious beliefs do to someone. Dan, a self professed 'godly' man, sees nothing at all wrong in throwing around the most obscene accusations but gets all bent out of shape if you liken him to something that lives under a rock...

>>Dan, a self professed 'godly' man, sees nothing at all wrong in throwing around the most obscene accusations but gets all bent out of shape if you liken him to something that lives under a rock...

THANK YOU! Thanks for revealing your agenda here. I see it now. You want to aggravate the pious to vain attempt to take them away from the Fruit of the Spirit (An ever-growing capacity of love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness and self control in the life of the believer.)

You literally are trying to do the devils work. Got it.

Remember, Christians are not perfect, just forgiven.

First, I am the most wretched and wicked man I know. DC Talk said it this way:

What's going on inside of me?I despise my own behaviorThis only serves to confirm my suspicionsThat I'm still a man in need of a Savior

Second, You brought my wife into the picture with your snarky comments. THAT is what started it. I will be the better man and forgive you for that though.

Third, you already displayed action to warrant a firm booting from a FB Group and now, since it is more difficult to do such things in blogger, you continue to harass to SHOW THE WORLD that Dan is some sort of "sinner" and no better.

Let me help you out. I am a sinner and I do need to have an ever-growing capacity of love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness and self control in my life. I want to thank you for helping me with this. Maybe you're actually doing God's work and were sent here for me to see this truth of your motives. Thank you for that Alex.

If you are the most wretched and wicked man that you know then this is very good advertisement AGAINST accepting your world view. That type of thinking is pathological and leads to all manner of neuroses and eventually, to suicide. You are an emotionally and mentally sick man.

I am as sure as my professional training allows me to be. I would put my diagnose somewhere at the 80 percent mark since I have not fully examined you.

Very little is certain in this world - except death. In the grown up world, where we no longer deal in absolutes, things vary in their level of certainty along a probabilistic scale.

This lack of complete and absolute certainty is a feature of the humbleness that a good education drums into a person.

Kids and bigots have trouble with this level of uncertainty and tend to deny it. This does not mean that the things they profess to be certain about actually have a high probability of being true.

In your case, we are talking about probablistic levels with a decimal point followed by a lot of zeros before the number with a standard deviation (a measure of the width of the uncertainty level) of about 1.0 in either direction. This still leaves the liklihood of your world view being absolutely correct floundering among the zeros. That is the likelihood of your version of things being actually correct is extremely low.

And you - where do you derive your absolute certainty that you are "the most wretched and wicked man" that you know?

Have you considered the implications of this belief about yourself. This does not sound like the description of someone who is fit to educate children, does it?

Your program does not have an edit button. My typing is not as good as it used to be and I make a lot of errors these days. I also have trouble with the small windows that these comments get typed into. I cannot scan the text easily to see if there are errors.

None of that means that I was a poor teacher when I was teaching college level English and logic or University level psychology or English as a Second Language. All it says is that I have trouble typing these days. When you are my age you might find you have the same problem.

Meanwhile, you are trying to teach your kids without external input while suffering from an apparently untreated mental disorder. This is a really unhealthy and cognitively deficient environment for your children. They will not thank you for their academic disadvantage in later years. For the sake of your children at least, get some competent medical help please.

Leave my kids out of our discussions please. Look, since we cannot finalize an argument engaged in infinite regress, we must stop at some self-validating, self-attesting authority. You have none.

Bahnsen says that the Christian system has a self-attesting authority. My epistemology is grounded in the all-interpreting presupposition of the personal, infinite, eternal, self-contained, self-revealing Creator of all facts and laws.

God is my ultimate reference point, and He alone is self-validating.

Now all systems must ultimately involve some circularity in reasoning. For instance again, from Bahnsen, when you argue for the legitimacy of the laws of logic, you must employ the laws of logic. How else can you justify the laws of logic? This is a transcendental issue, an issue that lies outside of the temporal, changing realm of sense experience.

Bahnsen is a specious idiot, and so are you for believing that he is making sense.

Your system is grounded in exactly the same self-attesting authority as anyone else's: your primary perception. Flawed as it is, it is right enough of the time to make living possible. The normal child quickly learns to seek external verification that what they are perceiving is real and to cross check across several modalities (visual, auditory, tactile, sensual, taste, pain.)

Your problem is that you have skipped the external validating process in matters to do with your religious beliefs.

As several of us have tried very hard to explain to you, the system you are now subscribing is self-contradictory and fatally flawed. Your presupposition is not grounded in reality and you failed to use an externally verified system for determining that a god was revealing himself to you in the first place.

Presuppositionalism is theological epistemology for idiots (followers) and money and power hungry frauds (leaders). You have been conned.

It' a fallacy that is a hasty generalization and guilt by association, all wrapped within an appeal to emotion. Way to go Doc. You're education certainly has brought you very far. Are you debt free yet? That much must have set you way back. Was it a grant,student loans, or Daddy's cash. You should give Daddy a very nice present for advancing your logic this far.

Please don't take this as mocking you. I tease you in love and still hope to meet you someday. I will praise the Lord if I meet up with you in heaven, we can have some laughs about these times together over a glass of cool lemonade. I will remain hopeful for you.

"It' a fallacy that is a hasty generalization and guilt by association, all wrapped within an appeal to emotion. Way to go Doc. You're education certainly has brought you very far. Are you debt free yet? That much must have set you way back. Was it a grant,student loans, or Daddy's cash. You should give Daddy a very nice present for advancing your logic this far."

DAN, I would not blame you if you delete this when you sober up, especially given your recent ad-hom attack regarding Rose's typo. The kettle just called for you, he wants his black back.

>>Dan, a self professed 'godly' man, sees nothing at all wrong in throwing around the most obscene accusations but gets all bent out of shape if you liken him to something that lives under a rock...

THANK YOU! Thanks for revealing your agenda here. I see it now. You want to aggravate the pious to vain attempt to take them away from the Fruit of the Spirit (An ever-growing capacity of love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness and self control in the life of the believer.)

You literally are trying to do the devils work. Got it.

Remember, Christians are not perfect, just forgiven.

First, I am the most wretched and wicked man I know. DC Talk said it this way:

What's going on inside of me?I despise my own behaviorThis only serves to confirm my suspicionsThat I'm still a man in need of a Savior

Second, You brought my wife into the picture with your snarky comments. THAT is what started it. I will be the better man and forgive you for that though.

Third, you already displayed action to warrant a firm booting from a FB Group and now, since it is more difficult to do such things in blogger, you continue to harass to SHOW THE WORLD that Dan is some sort of "sinner" and no better.

Let me help you out. I am a sinner and I do need to have an ever-growing capacity of love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness and self control in my life. I want to thank you for helping me with this. Maybe you're actually doing God's work and were sent here for me to see this truth of your motives. Thank you for that Alex.

DanOnce again Natural and Special revelations. Natural (nature, math, space, planets, stars, galaxies, etc.)...Except for the fact that as I pointed out before, it was exposure to the natural world that made many YECers lose their faith in the first place.

...and Special revelations (Jesus, His resurrection, Scriptures, miracles, etc.)Except for the fact that it seems that a lot of the parts of the bible are forgeries, see his book here or just plain flawed in the first place.

Dan, for you to assert that grass existed before the sun, or that donkeys can talk based on such a fallible book shows just how deluded you've become as a consequence of your believing what you want to believe.

Dan sidestepping contrary evidence, again.This is what the verses he pointed to say:

10 and all the ways that wickedness deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. 11 For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie 12 and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.

Do you have any evidence that that verse you quoted is true, Dan? Can you refute any of the points that I just raised? If not, then perhaps it's not my "delighting in wickedness" that makes me not believe the "truth", but the actual evidence against the bible's "inerrancy" itself?

For that matter, what evidence do you have that I'm "delighting in wickedness" in the first place?

"First, I am the most wretched and wicked man I know." "Second, ... I will be the better man and forgive you for that though" Anyone else see the contradiction? I'll get into the idea a little more on a future extension of "rules fundamentalist christians follow."

D.A.N.June 7, 2012 4:35 PM (To Gnardude)"Oh, and you worship the same god as Satanists."Then when Alex asked for clarification: "Don't be difficult. There is only one Creator, the Christian God. That is not the same as your god, the god of "self"."

So, DAN, which baseless accusation would you like to stick with? Do I worship Satan or myself? The answer is that I've never worshiped anything as I was never taught to.

That is a question for yourself but you may worship the same god as the Satanists. They ( Luciferians) worship, contrary to popular beliefs, the god of "self". Humanism. Same with the Atheists. You're all Antichrists.

Dan > "it is through God's natural and special revelations that we know for certain He exists."

Dan, you're only imagining your god; your claims regarding your god fall to one or more fallacies. For instance your assertions that the god known as YHWH exists are bald faced lies and hence false assertions. Your claim that knowledge can be acquired by mystical revelation is laughable because information can only exist as encoding embodied in atomist, materialist, reductionist particles and because knowledge is a mental cognitive apprehension of facts of existence via integration of concepts. Since there are no commensurable facts of reality from which a valid abstraction of the god YHWH may be adduced via measurement omission to form a valid concept of YHWH, then notions of YHWH are only fallacious floating abstractions that are indistinguishable from fantasies or psychotic delusions.

As to your claim that existence and nature are evidence of your god, well that's obviously and patently absurd. Existence is evidence of existence, and nature, the way in which various facets of existence or entities interact and relate to other facets of existence or entities, is evidence of nature. There is no way to adduce any valid inference from the axiomatic facts that existence exists and is identity to the proposition that your or anyone else's favorite sky fairy made existence.

Dan your case has been refuted over and over and over again and again. Yet for some bewildering, unfathomable reason you adhere to it. This background knowledge would mitigate a Bayesian probability calculation towards it being a rational belief that you are afflicted with some sort of psychological disorder. I think you should seek out a secular clinical psychologist to help diagnose any mental disorders you may have.

Inspiration

"I've noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born." ~Ronald Reagan----"A great many of those who debunk traditional values have in the background values of their own which they believe to be immune from the debunking process." ~C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man (1944)----"If sinners be damned, at least let them leap to Hell over our bodies. If they will perish, let them perish with our arms about their knees. Let no one go there unwarned and unprayed for." ~C.H. Spurgeon----”Prayer is not overcoming God's reluctance, but laying hold of His willingness.” ~Martin Luther----”Occam's razor states that one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything, however, the simple theory must be able to account for or explain what needs explaining. It's not enough to have a simpler theory if you can't account for anything. Though we shouldn't add entities beyond what's needed, we also should not subtract entities beyond what's needed.” ~Paul Manata----Until the Holy Spirit regenerates the sinner and brings him to repentance, his presuppositions will remain unaltered. And as long as the unbeliever's presuppositions are unchanged a proper acceptance and understanding of the good news of Christ's historical resurrection will be impossible. ~Dr. Bahnsen----“One of the most pernicious falsehoods ever to be almost universally accepted is that the scientific method is the only reliable way to truth” ~Professor Richard H. Bube, Stanford University----Rules of atheism"Science":

Theists will consider natural causes.Atheists will ONLY consider natural causes.

Theism posits an eternal mind followed by contingent matter.

Atheism posits matter followed by contingent minds.----"Evolution is the tinfoil hat used by atheists to keep God out of their brainwaves" ~Bevets

"It is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution, and stick by it to the bitter end" ~I. L. Cohen----from City of Angels

Seth: You're an excellent doctor.Maggie: How do you know?Seth: I have a feeling.Maggie: That's pretty flimsy evidence.Seth: Close your eyes. It's just for a moment.[touches her hand]Seth: What am I doing?Maggie: You're... touching me.Seth: Touch. How do you know?Maggie: Because, I feel it.Seth: You should trust that. You don't trust it enough.

"Ask the poor. They will tell you who the Christians are." ~Mahatma Gandhi

"Some want to live within the sound of church or chapel bells, I want to run a rescue shop within the yard of hell." ~C.T. Studd

"You don't have a soul, you are a soul. You have a body." ~C.S. Lewis

"Waiting is not wasting when you are waiting on the Lord. God works while we wait." ~unknown

"Since the bible defines a Christian as one who knows God, would you consider yourself to have been a Christian according to the biblical definition?" ~Thomas Bridges

Fun Quotes

Quasar: That's like saying: "look, none of the grasshoppers evolved fire-resistant skin when I put the flamethrower to them! Evolution must be false!"